For creative instructor

The Pristine Myth

Early America has always been described and thought of as a  wild land uninhabited and un-touched. Early settlers who came over in 1492 write of a pristine land much different than that of  Europe. However, it is very misleading. America was a very much habited land with upwards of 40 million people living here. It is difficult to believe a land so highly populated would be anywhere near "pristine" and untouched. The Native Americans had been here for thousands of years prior to the first European settlers and they drastically changed the landscape in order to benefit them and their survival. Denevan's essay discusses the misconceptions and the impact the Native Americans had on the land of America.

    His thesis is that America would be considered to have been more pristine a few hundred years after the arrival of the Europeans as opposed to when they first arrived. "The evidence, pieced together from vague ethno- historical accounts, field surveys, and archaeology, supports the hypothesis that the Indian landscape of 1492 had largely vanished by the mid-eighteenth century, not through a European superimposition, but because of the demise of the native population. The landscape of 1750 was more 'pristine" (less humanized) than that of 1492." (Denevan p. 370).

The essay argues that America was, in fact, more pristine and had more wilderness and wildlife in the year 1750 than it was a few hundred years prior in 1492 when the first settlers arrived. This was in part due to the decline of the Indian population and the fact that there was fewer people populating the country at that time. There is much debate about the actual numbers of the Native American population in 1492 because there is no written record. Denevan provides us with the number being 53.9 million as a population for the new world. That number includes north and south America. When Columbus arrived the native population was steadily rising. "European entry into the New World abruptly reversed this trend. The decline of native American populations was rapid and severe, probably the greatest demographic disaster ever." (Denevan p.370). Disease killed most of the Indians, exposing them to many things their immune systems had never seen and could not handle. By 1750 the population was drastically lower than it had been in 1492.

Besides the population difference, the vegetation and wildlife may also have been better off in 1750. The Native Americans harvested timber, burned fields, and farmed the lands. Overhunting is believed to be the cause of extinction of some large indigenous animals. "American flora, fauna, and landscape were slowly Europeanized after 1492, but before that they had already been Indianized." (Denevan p. 381). I found Denevan’s argument weak in this area. He fails to mention the special relationship Native Americans had with the land which has been widely spoken of in our readings for class. The article mentions overhunting by the Indians as a main reason for the depletion of the bison and other large game. However, there is no reason to believe that the bison population was in better shape in 1750 than in 1492.

    I believe Denevan's argument is very persuasive. He makes many points about the effects the Indians had on the land. His best point, in my opinion, is his argument of the population. It is impossible to believe that a land populated by over 50 million people would be considered pristine. He also points out that many factors were involved to get to where America was between 1492 to 1750. "The human impact on environment is not simply a process of increasing change or degradation in response to linear population growth and economic expansion. It is instead interrupted by periods of reversal and ecological rehabilitation as cultures collapse, populations decline, wars occur, and habitats are abandoned." (Denovan p. 381).

The Machine in the Garden

    Leo Marx’s essay focuses on literature and writings of a time prior to 1860. He notices a change in the mood of the writing style of popular authors coinciding with the Industrial Revolution. Even with no mention of machines or technological changes happening, Marx points out the subtle difference and darkness to works of literature. He is writing to display the transformation that the Revolution had on literature and darkness it cast over the mood of writing.

    Although the writing of American authors was rarely directly about the Industrial Revolution during the time, it played a vital role as a character in many stories. “For among the many arid notions which have beset inquiries into the relations between literature and society, perhaps the most barren has been the assumption that artists respond to history chiefly by making history their manifest subject.” (Marx, 28) What Marx is saying here is that artists have a different way of expressing what is currently happening in the world. Rather than making it a focal point, it is merely a background character which has an impact on everyone surrounding it. It is not merely a theme of writing either, but something more.

    He focuses on “Ethan Brand” by Hawthorne. The story never mentions the Industrial Revolution and the theme has nothing to do with industrialization. The time of the writing and changes happening in the world influence many parts of the story, though. Between 1830 and 1860, machine power took hold of Americans. Machines were powering the future. “They stood for progress, productivity, and, above all, man's new power over nature.” (Marx, 30.) Hawthorne used images of machines and the new revolution to convey deep emotions and feelings. He admitted to using the railroad to imply a sense of loneliness. Marx recalls the darkness and sense of dislocation in “Ethan Brand” and believes machines are responsible for this. “Hawthorne singles out several men: the stage-agent, recently deprived of his vocation; an old-fashioned country doctor, his useful days gone by; and a man who has lost a hand (emblem of craftsmanship?) in the "devilish grip of a steam-engine.” He is now a "fragment of a human being."(Marx, 35) The sense of detachment, especially to nature, lingers over the writing.

    Marx also focuses on Moby Dick, which was published just three years after “Ethan Brand.” This writing provided more of an insight to America’s destiny. “our writers have provided a desperate recognition of this truth: of the attributes necessary for survival, the Ahabs alone have been endowed with the power, and the Ishmaels with the perception. Ishmael was saved. But like one of Job's messengers, he was saved to warn us of greater disasters in store for worshippers of fire”(Marx, 42). Humans being the worshipers of fire, and fire being machines. It is a warning of our reliance to machines which is even more evident in our lives today.

    Marx makes a compelling argument and does make me think deeply about the writings of the time and the happenings of the world. However, he provided only a few examples that support his thesis. I think it is obvious writing changes and themes differ with changes in technology and wars and revolutions happening. For some, maybe the Industrial Revolution did cast a darker shadow on their writing to reflect their feelings during the time. There is no way categorize all literature of the time into this realm. The Industrial Revolution did bring a change of tone for some artists of the time, but not all.

American Wildlife Policy and Environmental Ideology: Poisoning Coyotes, 1939-197

Thomas Dunlap’s essay focuses on the inhumane tactics used to exterminate “pests” and “varmints” in the U.S. In 1972 a ban was set in place to eliminate the use of poisons to kill predatory animals. “Americans had long regarded predators as they had the forests and the Indians- something to be cleared from the land to make way for civilization” (Dunlap 345). Dunlap believes during this time there was a change in people’s perception and goals regarding the environment to something more inclusive of all living creatures.

One example of the changes is the public’s opinion on the use of a poison called 1080. In 1915 a federal program was established for predator and rodent control. These programs helped many farmers whose crops and sheep flocks were impacted by predatory wildlife. The main concern of people was the elimination of coyotes. The cheapest way to kill these predators was through the use of poison, specifically 1080. Many other poisons were used and many had horrible side-effects as well as being inhumane (killing very slowly and with much pain.) Other “innocent” animals sometimes got into the poison as well. During a study of such poision testing found dead around test stations: 673 coyotes, 24 dogs, 3 badgers, 8 squirrels, 4 weasels, 1 cat, 4 eagles, 4 hawks, and 9 magpies. (Dunlap 350).

Scientists were not fans of the poisoning program, as they knew its negative effects. “The maturation of animal ecology in the 1930s provided the scientific basis for the new opposition (of poison). Scientists, studying animal communities  by looking at food chains, trophic levels, niches, and ecosystems, began to see how species interacted and that even apparently useless ones had a function” (Dunlap 356). They realized that every living thing is connected somehow. And that eliminating entire species could have detrimental effects. They found that eliminating coyotes didn’t protect as much of the sheep heard as they believed it would. Worster wrote a lot about the deer population and how much of a disaster the attempt to revitalize it went. Eliminating their predators was actually worse for the deer population than having a larger deer population. There was too much competition for the same food and the same habitat and the overcrowding was harder on them than having a natural predator such as a mountain lion.

Changes in society, law, and administration also paved way for the new mindset of the American people. “Widespread acceptance of another idea- that mankind should not cause unnecessary suffering- stimulated the growth of the humane movement, and some parts of it became militantly committed to helping wildlife.” (Dunlap 359). I think as people began to gain an appreciation for nature and the environment and as they found it as something to be proud of in our nation, it changed how they approached many situations. Something that was so accustom was now taboo because the idea of killing animals inhumanely did not sit well with most people. When Richard Nixon passed his law in 1972 to eliminate the killing of wildlife in national forests and parks, it proved that the mindset of Americans was truly changing.

Dunlap makes a compelling and persuasive argument. The attitude of Americans changed in regards to killing coyotes and all animals considered pests since the early 1900s. Many factors caused this change such as the public's opinion on the poison 1080, the advancements in science, and the changes in the law and society. Not everyone was a fan of the changes at first, but I think they ultimately made America a better place.

Conclusion

After reviewing each of these articles and analyzing the themes in all I do find a connection. I tried to choose articles that had different topics to learn about many things but they all seem to have a similar underlying message. They all focus on the importance of wilderness and having a connection to the environment.

Being taught the importance of wilderness is easy, but understanding it may not be as simple. I feel fortunate to live in a place that is beautiful with nature and is proud of it. Not everyone is as lucky. I think that having that connection does not come easy and it does not come overnight. Early European settlers did not instantly have that connection with American and it has taken time for people to appreciate what we have in this country. Through all of the readings in class I can say pretty confidently that we are in a much better place as far as understanding nature and treating our land and wilderness with more respect than we initially did. I don’t think anyone wants to see America waste away, so it is our job to continue to preserve the beauty and appreciate everything we have.